Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

anagama writes "Forgent Networks, a patent troll, got the slap down by a TX jury in May when it invalidated a patent Forgent held regarding video teleconferencing over telephone lines, and today, its motion for a new trial against EchoStar was denied. In fact, the court awarded EchoStar $90k in costs. Forgent probably isn't crying that much though, it already extorted $28m from other defendants. Some of you may recall that Forgent made a business out of cheating companies for jpeg use — till their patent was largely invalidated on that front as well."

Judge Ito - "Order! Order! No more disturbances from the Forgent attorneys. I will hear this evidence."Hanna-Barbera - "Your honor, I present exhibit A. Now, if you watch closely on your television screen, you will see George calling in sick to Mr. Sprocket."

Oh how soon they forget.....George's boss is Mr. Spacely. The owner of Spacely's Sprockets. The competition was Cogswells Cogs. Clearly you have been neglecting your watching of Saturday morning cartoons. Where are your priorities?

Unlike copyright the patent concept is easy to defend. The benefit for progress of engineering and technological culture can be logically demonstrated - and unlike copyright the limits on duration are not totally insane.

However there is obviously some need for reform. If I were starting a business today I would be sure to base it in somewhere like China and register my patents in the US in order to minimise my likely exposure while maximising my potential gain. So what could be done?

Almost the scariest aspect of the patent system is not the actual law but the consequences of the threat of the law. If you are perceived to be infringing your case could be hugely expensive and very protracted - and justice delayed is justice denied. Being right isn't going to be much help if I go bankrupt before I win! Unless you are a huge company you are essentially screwed by a lawsuit. With the intent of keeping the system essentially fair it would seem to be wise to:

Assess the patent dispute in a week or so in a semi-formal tribunal of peers. Appeal is permitted, with (capped) costs paid by each side.

Assess the patent in an equivalent of a small claims court over a month or so. Appeal is permitted, with (capped) costs paid by the loser.

Full lawyer enriching bun fight - but whoever lost the last round gets to pick up the whole cost until a winner is declared.

By lowering the cost of patent litigation the risk would be reduced - and we wouldn't have to wait so long or force so many people to pay protection money in the course of business.

Not really. Patent trolls don't make money through lawsuits, but by threatening lawsuits. Companies then go and pay licensing fees that they know aren't legal because the fees are cheaper than fighting in court. If it cost less money to fight a bogus patent, more of them would be challenged and invalidated.

The States are seriously in need of a Law Reform.
Here in italy if you threaten a suite you'd better be ready to do it. Else the treathened part can sue you back! Treathening a lawsuit without evidence for the sole scope of gaining a unlawful advantage is a felony here.

I believe it is in the US as well, but the judges tend to take any sort of tiny bit of evidence as evidence that you were serious... ie, give everyone their fair shake.

That way they don't end up denying the little guy because they didn't all 17-million forms properly filled out in ancient Sumerian on rice paper, with lines numbered in cuneiform (or rather in Roman numerals depending on what your local court prefers)

Its this "protect the little guy" thing that groups like this take advantage of, since they say "Hey, we're little guys.. and they're trying to take advantage of us"

This sounds like the right sort of idea - making the earliest stage of the process quicker and cheaper. I think another very worthwhile idea would be that as soon as any proceedings are filed on any patent claim, the patent in question should immediately be re-submitted for more thorough examination by the patent office. If the re-examination fails, the case is thrown out before it's begun.Too many patents mean that there isn't enough resources to check each one as well as would be desired, but for the sm

That's an interesting idea. I have another -- I may have heard this before on Slashdot, I can't remember.When a person or business files a patent application with the Patent Office, they pay a filing fee. If the Patent Office can find prior art documentation that causes them to reject the patent, the filer agrees to pay them an additional "sorry to have wasted your time" fee. [To avoid the Patent Office rejecting every application they receive, they should be required to file documentation. including exp

Unlike copyright the patent concept is easy to defend. The benefit for progress of engineering and technological culture can be logically demonstrated - and unlike copyright the limits on duration are not totally insane.

I don't care whether it can be logically demonstrated. It's been around for quite a while, so the question isn't "logically, should this work", but rather "has this been observed to *actually* work". And I kinda get the impression that the answer to that is "it depends" and "somewhat, but

I don't care whether it can be logically demonstrated. It's been around for quite a while, so the question isn't "logically, should this work", but rather "has this been observed to *actually* work". And I kinda get the impression that the answer to that is "it depends" and "somewhat, but not as well as we'd think".

Links to lots of insightful analysis on this question have recently been posted here [slashdot.org].

Unlike copyright the patent concept is easy to defend. The benefit for progress of engineering and technological culture can be logically demonstrated

The patent system was originally an alternative to the guilds, who would keep the important knowledge of their trade a secret from those who wished to compete. Not only was the knowledge at risk of being lost over time, but the guilds actively worked to prevent non-guild members from competing in their trade. So now, we have government-granted temporary monopolies as an incentive to share these secrets.

The problem is, the "secrets" going into the patent system these days are about as useful to someone skilled in the art as a list of ingredients on a box of food is to a chef. They are purposefully written in an obfuscated manner. One never hears of someone poring over prior patents for enlightenment - in fact, company lawyers often recommend to their employees never to research patents because then they would be knowingly infringing on anything they stumbled upon.

I believe there are more powerful mechanisms at work that would prevent the reformation of a guild system today if the patent system disappeared. For starters, employees switch jobs much more regularly. Legal limits to non-compete contracts would be effective in keeping this mechanism in place. The Internet has promoted a worldwide culture of knowledge-sharing. Corporate secrets are regularly and anonymously leaked to the public.

So in my mind the question is not whether patents are necessary to protect knowledge sharing. The question is whether the incentive to innovate would remain, and whether that incentive is truly tied to money. I am increasingly dubious.

It's good to see a patent troll lose. But nice though such victories are, it clouds the issue. It raises people's hope that the patent and court systems really can work, and all that is needed is a bit more reform. Cue the various bandaid sorts of suggestions, such as shortening patent lengths, being more careful about granting patents, and whatever. Possibly the best of those solutions is eliminating the patenting of software.

I remained convinced that the entire idea of "Intellectual Property" is bro

the limits didn't use to be insane on copyrights, either. They were originally fourteen years. I would have no object to copyright at that point: most every NES game, all 80s music, and every book written up to today's date in 1993 would be legally public domain.

Give it time for some chode to get patents made engineer's life plus ninety-nine years...

Instead of going through all the gyrations you present here the solution is simple...Currently, patents carry the presumption of validity in court. The court is taking the Patent Office's word that it has been vetted. When the Patent Office grants patents willy-nilly-neigh, it makes a mess with the current system. Nothing like being found guilty of infringement of an invalid patent! Removing that presumption would shift the burden of proving the patent valid where it belongs. I also believe that just as wil

IMHO, your steps (1) and (2) [non-numbered bullets, above] should be done also in the Patent Office, before the patent is granted. And to register a pantent, the registrant should bear the burden of proving that (1) his patent is novel and (2) his patent is non-trivial.

I would say that actually the patent as a concept is less defensable than copyright as a concept (barring the many procedural and implementation issues).

The fundamental difference is that if two people working dilligently on a similar idea, one will be granted a 17 year monopoly on the idea and the other will be deprived of his years of blood, sweat, and tears on the basis of who just happens to show up at the patent office first. The patent system ignores that invention is ALWAYS based on other ideas and

[Narrator, Whispering]:We've secretly replaced their expensive patents with useless Forgent crystals. Let's see if they notice.

[Judge, Cringing]Ack! I don't like the taste of this one bit - your claim is denied!

[Narrator, Whispering]Well, there you have it - the legal system can still reject some kinds of landgrabs, when they're wrapped in the form of a patent. We now return you to your regularly scheduled eminent domain rulings.

this stuff never surprises me but what does surprise me is that someone in the u.s. hasn't decided to fix the situation on their own.. a few years the virginia sniper assassinated a dozen or so people with impunity., greed is what got him caught , he was looking for a grand prize, and the feds never like it when someone wants to take something that belongs to them (money)...
with all the loose nuts roaming the streets in the u.s. i'm surprised they haven't taken the law into their own hands already and

when you settle a patent dispute, you don't usually get the chance to make your payment conditional on the patent remaining in force forever. So Forgent can take the money from Motorola etc and run. In the UK, there was a case where a patent was ruled valid and infringed but before the judge decided on the level of damages, someone else knocked the patent out. When the judge eventually decided on the level of damages, the first company still had to pay because the infringement/validity finding was final and

Well obviously I don't know the grounds of rejection by the PTO so I can't answer your first question.

Restriction orders will not count against them... well maybe they should because most people that file claims are indeed insane and should be restricted from trying again and again... restriction orders count as 2:).

If the claim is successfully amended than the case does not count against them unless they roll a 1.

Can someone define this epithet?Seeing it used to describe a company in an article as if were an unquestionable fact is just strange to me.

Here's a hypothetical:Dr. X invents some ingenious gizmo and receives a patent from the PTO.He has no manufacturing capability and wishes to license the patent to manufacturers rather than manufacture himself.I'm a manufacturer of gizmos and I read his recently issued patent at uspto.gov.I think there is profit in it, so

...or you're the troll. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. You make the mistake of assuming that patents are filed by genuine inventors and that the patent office actually give a crap about what they pass.

The scenario you describe is NOTHING like what we see in real life. Dr. X in your situation is absolutely not a patent troll.

Now, Mr. Y on the other hand, he spends his time (with Mr Z, his IP lawyer) thinking up as many spurious and badly worded patents as possible. He tries to make them vague, but kinda new sounding. Occasionally he likes to throw in something someone else has already done.

Mr Z sends these off to the US patent office who take his money and grant his patents without researching what they mean or what they really cover.

Later, Y and Z take companies to court over products which may or may not infringe on these really badly worded patents. These companies are using things that are either standard, obvious or their own invention. A lot of them pay up to avoid court, especially given how rare it is for costs to be awarded to defendants.

This is exactly what Y and Z want, this is what makes Y and Z trolls. They haven't invented a thing, yet they try to extort money from those that do.

Umm, no, it's legitimate use.Either you didn't understand why people were calling these companies "trolls" or you were deliberately misrepresenting the situation in order to stir things up - trolling. It's sometimes difficult to tell which.

My last post is anything but a flame or a troll, in fact I described the reason these companies are labelled "trolls" quite calmly and simply I thought.

ANyway, never mind, you clearly don't understand what the word "troll" actually means in these contexts, nor wish to. OR

A patent troll is someone who simply files or acquires as many patents as possible IN ORDER to sue. Forgent is well known for this, I believe.

Oh, and he never called you a troll, it was an either/or situation, something most people understand after they mature a bit. Lighten up a bit... jackass. (note that you had to read my post to get that far)

You do realize that the one and only right that a patent gives you is a right to sue others for infringement. Or do you have absolutely no understanding of patent law?

So by your definition, anyone who ever purchased/acquired a patent would be a "patent troll." Maybe you just have no idea what you're talking about.Which makes me the dumb one for even bothering to respond to your inane babel.

I was bored, so I decided to read past the part where you call me a "troll."These companies are using things that are either standard, obvious or their own invention.First of all, the PTO is not supposed to issue patents that are obvious or anticipated by prior art. If you feel that the PTO is issuing such patents, then you have a problem with the PTO, and therefore with the United States Congress.

Second, I find it amusing that you stressed their own invention.You see, if company A invents something and K

On some levels we agree - I do think that the PTO is failing miserably in its job and have a huge problem with the patents its isuing. The whole "patent troll" issue involves companies who are abusing this.Now, if you are of the opinion that as long as a corporationis within the letter of the law then everything is fine with the world then you won't see a problem with this. Some people, however, consider it immoral regardless of how the system is set up, to claim ownership of and money from the inventions o

You again miss the point - company B haven't invented anything, they've used the failing of the PTO to obtain patents on things that they have no claim to have invented.

No, you again miss the point. I said company B invented it later - I didn't say company B stole the invention from Company A. Independent invention is possible.And the patent system, RIGHTLY, rewards those who disclose the invention to the public rather than keeping the invention secret and only using it themselves.

"Why is it immoral to claim ownership of an invention you didn't invent yourself, but purchased from the inventor? Are you suggesting that patents should be inalienable, and only the inventor may ever own the patent rights to his invention?"

It's not. You're an idiot troll. Fuck off.

I said that the scenario you paint is not what's happening in the real world.

LOL. Even retards get mod points I guess..So your definition of "patent troll" is anyone with "badly worded" patents?Who decides what "badly worded" means?YOU?Here's my impression of you:---Man, these patent trolls just get patents so they can sue people man.It's like the only reason they got the patent was so they can sue people.And the only reason they sue people is to get MONEY, man.And PLUS, their patents are all, like, badly worded and stuff, man.They're like, vague, and stuff.Oh, and they have lawyer

Oh, wow, you got me. Somebody mod that +4 informative.Let me ask you something: Why would anyone pay licensing royalties?Answer:A) Because its really fun to write checksB) To avoid being sued for patent infringement.A patent does not give you the right to collect royalties.A patent gives you the right to sue for infringement.Royalties are what companies pay to avoid being sued.

You obviously know nothing at all about patent law.But your position is contra intellectual property rights, so all the little nerd

OH, and BTW:IBM is on the list of patent trolls at Wikipedia.Along with University of California for suing Microsoft.We all know both of those institutions do significant R&D work and probably contribute a fair chunk of actual innovation to society. And yet any idiot with a Wikipedia account can add them to the list of "patent trolls".This entire conversation has done nothing but prove my point:That "Patent Troll" is a pejorative term that any idiot can throw around on the internet.Just like any idiot

Your Dr. X is not a patent troll. Forgent is a patent troll. So is Acacia. Patent trolls do not have inventors, they have lawyers. They buy up a patents here and there from inventors, and will try to find a company that produces something that is seemingly operating in a business connected to these patents. Then they sue. They will not investigate if the patent covers the business at all, they just start to harass and threaten. It's a very smudgy business, patent trolling, but apparently profitable.

They buy up a patents here and there from inventorsSo you have a problem with transferability of patent rights?Inventors should not be allowed to assign their patent rights?OK. Interesting suggestion.But you still haven't explained what makes someone a "patent troll".Please give a definition, not an example.

Is it anyone who purchases patent rights from an inventor?Or only a subset of these people? For instance, is it only those who purchase patent rights and fail to manufacture the patented invention?

Oh man. If you'd be truly interested in the subject (instead of trolling), it would take two seconds to get definitions, descriptions and examples of patent trolls. Maybe type if 'patent troll' in a google search box and be done with it.

Sure, and thanks for name-calling, it really supports my position that your side is a just a bunch of name-calling 5-year-olds.How about Wikipedia:Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a matter considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic... "Patent troll" is a controversial neologism, susceptible to multiple definitions.It is a pejorative term.AKA an epithet.AKA name-calling.

E) And getting revenue out of litigation is its sole source of revenue.

OK, now we're getting somewhere.But I don't think we're done, because I have another hypothetical for you:

Dr. X, again, has no manufacturing capacity.Again, I begin manufacturing the patented invention without permission.

This time, instead of filing his patent infringement lawsuit pro se, Dr. X decides he would like to be represented by counsel, so he goes looking for investors.He finds Mr. Z, a wealthy investor. They form a corporatio

Essentially, as used in this article, a "patent troll" is a company that does nothing but holds patents, but also goes above and beyond that by registering patents with very little technical background or a very general idea, sits on them for a few years, and then sues the pants off of anyone who uses that idea or technology AFTER said "patent infringer" has invested millions in the infrastructure and has become completely dependent on whatever the patent covers."Patent trolls" will also buy patents off of

but also goes above and beyond that by registering patents with very little technical background or a very general ideaIt seems to me that your argument is against the PTO issuing invalid patents.Which is a perfectly reasonable argument.But until you see the patent at issue, how do you know whether it is invalid or not, without even reading it?I guess what I don't understand is the rush to label anyone who sues as a "patent troll" without understanding the patent or the law..

But until you see the patent at issue, how do you know whether it is invalid or not, without even reading it?I guess what I don't understand is the rush to label anyone who sues as a "patent troll" without understanding the patent or the law..

True, I wasn't defending the OP but defining the statement. However, this company has made a history of doing these practices and while generalizations aren't always true, they do generally have a nugget of truth in there.

What I don't understand is why you have responded to the several people have attempted to explain this 'epithet' to you quite antagonistically and even with abject hostility. It is almost as if those answering the question were somehow insulting you personally, which is just as strange to me as the epithet is to you.

I'm not going to attempt to explain what has already been explained several times before. You already know the answer, or can figure it out easily enough if you put your mind to it. I don'

The only hostility was directed at the poster who called me, personally, a "troll".Other than that, no hostility was intended.And did you not notice that every definition was different from the other and completely vague and arbitrary?

"Troll" is the equivalent of A-hole.If you don't like someone you call them either one.But nobody is literally a "troll", just as nobody is literally a sphincter.It is just a meaningless insult.

I think its funny that the very first response was to call me a troll.But you quote

One other thing... why don't you stop trolling?Troll.If you are puzzled by my hostile response to someone who flamed my first post by calling me a "troll" then you are probably puzzled by a lot of things.

Why did you even bother to post? Your comment adds nothing, other than trolling.Oh, and I might also point out that you completely failed to answer my original question.Why don't you go back and read my responses to the two who didn't call me a "troll" for asking what it meant?I think you'll find that the

It's pretty clear to me that he can only barely read. Expecting him to have a reasoned discourse with anyone is like expecting George Bush to pronounce nuclear correctly. It's just not going to happen. (Hint, George: There's ONE "u" in nuclear!)

I looked at some of his other posts, and pretty he's pretty much just a jackass. Or maybe I just feel like bitching at people on/. tonight, I can't be sure.

Since patent is supposed to support the innovative spirit, cant they have different patent filing fee slabs depending on the wealth of the filer?Basically, if the patent is filed by an garage inventor, the cost for patenting is much less than if it by a multinational company, which can anyway afford it.Thus, by hiking the cost of patenting high enough, we would be able to reduce the effect of patent trolls, or the companies patenting every small thing, whereas, for the individual it would be better since th

They're really the only company out there that almost NEVER gives in on these things, even if it makes financial sense to do so. If there were just 10 more companies like EchoStar then this whole problem would cease to exist.